Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

Too much money for their lies to spread, too many distractions for the public to notice that their hair is burning and their toes are wet... Obama tested the waters and made some timid advances in the right direction. We'll see what comes out of it.

I think the money's already abandoned AGW denial and instead is being directed to opposing renewables directly. The idea is to attack it on economic and practicality terms, leaving climate out of it entirely. AGW denial was only ever a skirmish before that battle was joined in earnest.

I think we tend to be more aware than most of the denier movement, and perhaps get it a bit out of proportion. It was important earlier on, I think, when they were denying what would happen, but now they're reduced to telling overheated people they're not experiencing anything unusual, and Monckton has graphs which prove it. That only reaches people with an absolute need to believe.

The arrival of Monckton was the signal to start shorting their stock.

If you insert 2011 and 2012 the trendlines are indistinguishable. And the funny thing about a big El Niño is that it will happen again. A 98 Niño happening in 2014 would put the GTA close to 0.9... that would be almost 0.3 above 98's anomaly. Fun times would be had by all...

The next full-year El Nino is likely to be disastrous in terms of extreme weather. They often are, of course, but with the next one starting from such a high baseline the volume of Pacific water transferred to the Andes and Central America is going to radically alter the landscape.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

AlBell, I think that Megalodon is overstating things with "the huge amount of freak weather events occurring".
It is more that there is a increasing trend of outlying weather events (droughts, floods, storms, ice breakups) happening which is what is expected from global warming. Have a look at the WMO report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes (a bit overwhelming at 100 pages though!).

There is plenty of discussion on Skeptical Science, e.g. New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes.

I don't think it is necessarily overstating things. It is pretty well known that bare ground (and human made surfaces that simulate bare ground) makes a microclimate hotter in the heat of the day and cooler at night than ground covered with vegetation. While this effect is localized and affects global weather in tiny microscopic ways, it certainly is plausible that enough of these microclimates multiplied over the vast acreages that have been either deforested, desertified, plowed or otherwise stripped of vegetation it could have an effect. Add to that the heat added to the oceans from AGW and I would be surprised if it didn't cause "freak weather". After all the cooler cools mixing with the hotter hots causes turbulence and when hot moisture laden air from the oceans is added to that turbulence, something's bound to give.

Far too complicated for me personally to figure out exactly, but if a scientist or statistician made that prediction, I would certainly tend to believe them rather than not.

I know in my fields the growing season keeps getting shorter and shorter. Because while the average temp from year to year hasn't changed a whole lot (slightly higher), the late spring frosts and early fall frosts keep slowly and steadily encroaching on the growing season (on average). It doesn't matter if the average temp is warmer, all it takes is that one freak frost day and if your crops are not frost resistant........ Last fall I lost a full month due to an early frost, this spring I lost about 4-6 weeks to late frosts and ice storms, yet the average temp was above normal. I know this is anecdotal because I am just one tiny speck on the globe, but just saying, I wouldn't automatically discount the claim of "freak weather" without some very very close scrutiny. In my view it is more likely than not.

 

[Reality Check]

..., I wouldn't automatically discount the claim of "freak weather" without some very very close scrutiny. In my view it is more likely than not.

The bit that Megalodon overstated is the "huge amount" of freak weather events. As I stated there is good evidence for an increase in the number extreme weather events over time. But since that increase is not 10 times (or even 2 times in most cases) it is not huge - yet!

 

[Trakar]

The bit that Megalodon overstated is the "huge amount" of freak weather events. As I stated there is good evidence for an increase in the number extreme weather events over time. But since that increase is not 10 times (or even 2 times in most cases) it is not huge - yet!

It's mostly a perspective/perception issue. For instance, to my typical consideration, anything over 5-10% increase or decrease would be considered "significant," and anything between a 50-100% increase would be "huge" increase. Framed in my terms, you consider a 100% increase over the historic average to be inconsequential and require a 1000% increase before you would consider it to be a Huge increase of freak weather events.

I'm not saying that either one of you are right or wrong, merely that this is a perspective issue that could probably be explained in many ways besides "overstatement," which some people equate more to "deliberate sensationalizing exaggeration," rather than to something more like "tends towards a high-end analysis of the results."

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The bit that Megalodon overstated is the "huge amount" of freak weather events. As I stated there is good evidence for an increase in the number extreme weather events over time. But since that increase is not 10 times (or even 2 times in most cases) it is not huge - yet!

I guess it is your point of view. 1 day is only .3% of a year. But if that 1 day drops what usually is a 60 degree spring day down to 32 degrees or lower, then at least to a farmer, it is HUGE. This spring we had 2 days pass that magic number after what is normally the last frost date. We had a huge outbreak of tornadoes soon after dropping a lot of hail. Try growing something in weather like that. To you maybe it is only 3 days out of 365 and you could expect a certain number of "freak weather days" anyway in any spring. But while it may be a small thing to most people, to others like me it was in fact huge. And since then? Right after that within weeks it was already pushing 100 degrees. It is continuing too. It has hit 100 degrees followed by 75 degree high followed by 100 degrees again in the forecast all in less than one month. Again, I realize this is anecdotal because I am just a tiny speck on the globe, but the point is: what is "huge" to one person or not depends on their POV.

Now for this year, as it turns out, my very unusual organic methods saved me and I will in fact still get a crop barring a future calamity. But many of the farmers around were not so lucky.

 

[Trakar]

I guess it is your point of view. 1 day is only .3% of a year. But if that 1 day drops what usually is a 60 degree spring day down to 32 degrees or lower, then at least to a farmer, it is HUGE. This spring we had 2 days pass that magic number after what is normally the last frost date. We had a huge outbreak of tornadoes soon after dropping a lot of hail. Try growing something in weather like that. To you maybe it is only 3 days out of 365 and you could expect a certain number of "freak weather days" anyway in any spring. But while it may be a small thing to most people, to others like me it was in fact huge. And since then? Right after that within weeks it was already pushing 100 degrees. It is continuing too. It has hit 100 degrees followed by 75 degree high followed by 100 degrees again in the forecast all in less than one month. Again, I realize this is anecdotal because I am just a tiny speck on the globe, but the point is: what is "huge" to one person or not depends on their POV.

Now for this year, as it turns out, my very unusual organic methods saved me and I will in fact still get a crop barring a future calamity. But many of the farmers around were not so lucky.

While your observations are anecdotal, they aren't uncommon, especially among people who spend a great deal of their time each month out in the environment. I have immediate family who own and operate farms in Alberta, Minnesota, Oklahoma and southern Brazil, every one of them have spoken of increasingly unusual weather events growing seasons over the last 2 decades. I know this isn't the proper thread, but if you have a thread in an appropriate forum, I do have a couple acres that I garden and I would be interested in hearing more about your "unusual organic methods."

 

[a_unique_person]

ETA: To keep this on track as somewhat separate from the general topic of climate change - the "Greening" effect is very limited and has only been documented in Australia. Not all plants might benefit from it, much the way some plants can take advantage of excess soil nitrogen compared to other plants. Unfortunately, the plants that like the nitrogen are the same plants that promote frequent wildfire. This means that in many deserts, more rapid plant growth leads to more fires, and less fixed carbon, less biomass, not more. You drew the wrong results from your two links, they do not actually draw the conclusions that you inferred from them.

The type of plants that best take advantage of disrupted ecosystems are weeds. They well adapted at that.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not saying that either one of you are right or wrong, merely that this is a perspective issue that could probably be explained in many ways besides "overstatement," which some people equate more to "deliberate sensationalizing exaggeration," rather than to something more like "tends towards a high-end analysis of the results."

I think in an evironment like this one an understated and detached style is best. "Huge" is fine in conversation with ordinary people about peripheral issues, but as we know things are very different in this case. I find "significant" particularly useful .

 

[Trakar]

I think in an evironment like this one an understated and detached style is best. "Huge" is fine in conversation with ordinary people about peripheral issues, but as we know things are very different in this case. I find "significant" particularly useful .

Luckily, "significant" is closer to the extent of the impacts we've thus far experienced. Unfortunately, "Huge," "Massive," and "Katy bar the door and head for the bomb shelter," are not eliminated from possibility and become increasingly likely the longer we put off serious action and remediation.

 

[lomiller]

But preventing global warming is expensive!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm

Economic modelling shows that the methane emissions caused by shrinking sea ice from just one area of the Arctic could come with a global price tag of 60 trillion dollars -- the size of the world economy in 2012.

 

[Mikemcc]

But preventing global warming is expensive!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm

There appears to be some discussion about the basics of this study. That the plumes found to date may be more likely pre-existing, rather than climate-change induced and that there hasn't been sufficient time or a big enough change yet to trigger climate induced thawing of the calthrates.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...pulse-we-find-disagreement-amongst-scientists

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But preventing global warming is expensive!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm

I am not sure I get it. Possibly your statement is sarcastic? But even sarcastic, you posted a link showing what costs might be if preventative measures are not taken. So at the risk of making an unintentional strawman, I would guess you are trying to say as expensive as prevention may be, it pales in comparison to the costs of doing nothing and continuing on our current path?

I would counter that prevention is actually profitable. Assuming of course that you use a model of prevention that completely changes the agricultural model from the conventional to one that uses biomimicry. Nature sequestered all that carbon in the first place, and setting up a model of agriculture that mimics nature and sequesters carbon can be quite profitable.

Here is a good example: Project Hope

There are of course other models. I am working on one myself.

 

[a_unique_person]

The bit that Megalodon overstated is the "huge amount" of freak weather events. As I stated there is good evidence for an increase in the number extreme weather events over time. But since that increase is not 10 times (or even 2 times in most cases) it is not huge - yet!

This will cause problems as the people of Brisbane discovered when their Dam that was built to withstand any known floods failed miserably when they had a record flood. It wasn't even twice as big as expected.

 

[Megalodon]

The bit that Megalodon overstated is the "huge amount" of freak weather events. As I stated there is good evidence for an increase in the number extreme weather events over time. But since that increase is not 10 times (or even 2 times in most cases) it is not huge - yet!

Terribly sorry if you disagree, but there is a huge increase of freak weather events, and it's due to AGW. Of course, the magnitude one assigns to "huge" is the crux here. For me, an increase of 50% in any weather-related event I can think of is huge.

The idea that we needed a ten-fold increase on number of extreme weather events before being allowed to call it "huge" is ridiculous, considering the social and economic effects of those events.

Maybe the problem here is that the deniers have been spewing a caricature of what were the expected consequences of AGW, and the absence of sharknados leaves most people cold.

Unfortunately for all, the true projections were wrong in that they were too conservative, and we are seeing things falling apart much faster than expected.

 

[lomiller]

Terribly sorry if you disagree, but there is a huge increase of freak weather events,

Probably splitting hairs but technically there isn’t an increase in freak weather. What’s happening is that the spectrum of normal weather is changing and events that were once “freak” events are now within the range of relatively normal weather.

1000 year heat-waves are may be 30 year events you should expect to see multiple times in your lifetime while in some places 30 year heat-waves are now fairly normal events you would expect every few years.

Locally we have a riverside walkway originally built in the 1980’s. At the time it was built, based on historic norms, it was predicted that it would occasionally need extensive cleaning because spring flooding would overtake it once every 5-7 years. It’s been flooded 7 of the last 10 years, and it finally opened last week after being under water until the middle of July. If anything having it not flood would now be the freak/unusual.

 

[CapelDodger]

... Of course, the magnitude one assigns to "huge" is the crux here.

Indeed, and that would be something our local deniers would jump on back when there was still some life in them. Now we have to bring it up ourselves .

On that sort of vein, "catastrophic" has been added to AGW precisely because it can be defined as "worse than [fill in any future event here]".

Maybe the problem here is that the deniers have been spewing a caricature of what were the expected consequences of AGW, and the absence of sharknados leaves most people cold.

I think we've become all too aware of the red herrings, diversions and rabbit-holes commonly indulged in by deniers, and several pages of nit-picking could have followed your use of "huge". Personally, I think we can start to relax.

Unfortunately for all, the true projections were wrong in that they were too conservative, and we are seeing things falling apart much faster than expected.

Unsurprisingly, of course. Science is inherently conservative.

 

[Reality Check]

Terribly sorry if you disagree, but there is a huge increase of freak weather events, ...

I actually disagree with your usage of the non-quantitative and slightly emotive term "huge", Megalodon.

Pick a number, Megalodon , i.e. there has been a X fold (and that is IMHO "huge") increase in freak weather events.

I look at the cited literature (e.g. in Is extreme weather caused by global warming?) and see they mention significant increases of freak weather events that are causing damage now and predicted increases that will cause even more damage in the future.

Freak weather events do have social and economic effects. The observed and predicted increases in the freak weather events do and will have more social and economic effects. That is why steps are needed to curb global warming.

 

[CapelDodger]

I actually disagree with your usage of the non-quantitative and slightly emotive term "huge", Megalodon.

Cut the big fish some slack; quantitative and impersonal are requirements Megalodoc's day-job, which this isn't. Slightly emotive in down-time is better than I could promise, and not something I'd begrudge.

Pick a number, Megalodon , i.e. there has been a X fold (and that is IMHO "huge") increase in freak weather events.

I look at the cited literature (e.g. in Is extreme weather caused by global warming?) and see they mention significant increases of freak weather events that are causing damage now and predicted increases that will cause even more damage in the future.

What strikes me about this exchange is that you are effectively playing the role of denier for Megalodon as a training exercise because no actual deniers turned up. They don't have the energy for it any more.

Freak weather events do have social and economic effects. The observed and predicted increases in the freak weather events do and will have more social and economic effects. That is why steps are needed to curb global warming.

All fine apart from the last sentence. "Needed" in what sense? Action certainly has to be taken if global warming is to be controlled, but is that needed? Social and economic effects of any disruption are notoriously uneven, with winners and losers, and the winners need it not to be prevented. "Need", in this context, is not objective and so has no place in a Science Forum. And on we go down the rabbit-hole.

Like I say, these days we have to make it up for ourselves.

 

[a_unique_person]

All things being equal, the number of temperature records should be about as many high records as low records. In fact, they are running 3 to 1 in favour of high records. My simple logic leads me to conclude that 2 out of three high temperature records are the result of global warming.

 

[Megalodon]

Probably splitting hairs but technically there isn’t an increase in freak weather. What’s happening is that the spectrum of normal weather is changing and events that were once “freak” events are now within the range of relatively normal weather.

1000 year heat-waves are may be 30 year events you should expect to see multiple times in your lifetime while in some places 30 year heat-waves are now fairly normal events you would expect every few years.

Locally we have a riverside walkway originally built in the 1980’s. At the time it was built, based on historic norms, it was predicted that it would occasionally need extensive cleaning because spring flooding would overtake it once every 5-7 years. It’s been flooded 7 of the last 10 years, and it finally opened last week after being under water until the middle of July. If anything having it not flood would now be the freak/unusual.

Very much splitting hairs, but nonetheless right. It should have read "formerly freak events, now worryingly normal". Of course, we now have to wait for the new freak...